A Martin Scorsese Film Festival

Last night on The Golden Globes, they honored Scorsese and played a montage of his biggest films. You know, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Last Waltz, The Departed, The Aviator, etc. You know, the films that have had a major impact on pop culture and are referenced, parodied, and mentioned on a regular basis in television, movies, songs, books, etc.

I realized I've never seen any of these films. Except The Last Waltz. Which doesn't really even count, I think. The plan is to watch Goodfellas and Taxi Driver today. I'll be posting my thoughts and reactions to the films after I watch them.

This should be interested. I love Goodfellas and Taxi Driver but fear Taxi Driver has not held up all that well.

Are you one that likes The Godfather or wonder what all the hoopla is about? Taxi Driver's pacing is closer to the Godfather than Goodfellas.

I've seen The Godfather movies once, and I remember liking them enough to understand why they're iconic, but that was years ago. I'm really looking forward to watching these movies. I haven't been avoiding them, I just never really took the time to watch them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

I've seen The Godfather movies once, and I remember liking them enough to understand why they're iconic, but that was years ago. I'm really looking forward to watching these movies. I haven't been avoiding them, I just never really took the time to watch them.

---

I think you'll like both then. They are great film making.

Didn't Coppola direct the Godfather movies?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TFR You SOB

Didn't Coppola direct the Godfather movies?

---

Yes, he did.

The only Scorses film that I adore is Age of Innocence. But Taxidriver is great as well. Haven't seen the others. Enjoy!

Goodfellas first. I found the movie very engrossing. I have a hard time paying attention to any movies, but this one kept me glued to the screen. And I had a genuine emotional reaction more than once--the movie really hits you in the guts. I liked the whole bit where he realizes the helicopter was following him, and I thought the first 1/3 was really well done. The ending though was a bit of a let down. I mean, yeah, clearly the dude survived because he was narrating the whole thing, but "and then they went to jail and he went to suburbia" is so abrupt. And I couldn't tell if we were supposed to feel sorry for the guy or if the end was intentionally ironic, ie, "Listen to this douchebag bitch about how he can't get decent food. The asshole is lucky to be alive, amirite?!" Or if it was "Isn't this a sad tale of the American dream poignantly told?"

It is a little weird to grow up with parodies like The Good Feathers and all the references to "Am I clown?" and then see the original. I also liked the soundtrack a lot. Overall, I'm glad I watched it and am sorry it took me so long to get around to it.

I really like Goodfellas as mentioned. I also really enjoy the The Good Feathers too.

I am glad you enjoyed it. Something about the scene in the prison and slicing the garlic thin with the a razor blades stand out the most to me. So odd but somehow made the characters so much more real to me.

Taxi Driver tonight. As before, I found that the movie really held my attention. DeNiro was unbelievably amazing. It's hard to reconcile that with my image of him now. I can't believe that's the same guy that was in Meet the Parents. I wish I could have seen this movie when it was first released, it was probably extremely powerful at the time. I didn't really get the ending, though. The final scene after the shoot out was so freaking perfect, why couldn't it end there? Was the final coda scene supposed to be a happy ending? Are we supposed to be glad that he survived and he knows Iris is safe? Because I don't feel very happy. I mean, Travis was miserable and crazy and trapped in a world he despised. What kind of living is that?

ETA: On second thought, I think my first reaction to the ending might have been a little too literal. Which doesn't make me happy at all. This is the sort of thing I'll think about for the next several days.

All in all, like with Goodfellas, I'm happy I watched it and I'm sorry I never took the time to watch it before.

Goodfellas is one of my all time favorite movies. One of my favorite scenes is the very last one Joe Pesci is in (you know the one). I don't think you're necessarily supposed to feel sorry for the Ray Liotta character at the end, his fate is much better than he probably deserved.

I saw Taxi Driver once, years ago. I too was confused by the ending but agree maybe it isn't meant to be taken literally? I've never participated in any discussion of the movie and really should probably see it again, maybe I'd have a different perspective on it now.

I think the Godfather movies were brought up, even though they were directed by Coppola, because they are THE iconic mafia movies. Goodfellas inevitably gets compared to them, and everyone it seems prefers one pretty strongly over the other (I'm Goodfellas, the more annoying of my two brothers is all about the Godfather. In fact I just finished watching his DVDs of the trilogy, the first time I've finally seen all three movies uncut in their entirety).

Raging Bull tonight. This one was harder for me to get into at first. THough to be fair, I was in the middle of a Buffy discussion in chat. The thing that forced my attention was one of the fight scenes. I don't get boxing at all, but the way the fight scene was choreographed and shot was just so beautiful. I love the way this movie was put together. I love the way he used sound, and the way he used the black & white. I loved how the emotions were slowly built, layer by layer, and how I wanted to hate Jake because he was such an asshole but I couldn't. Not quite.

The scene at the end when he's practicing the monologue from On the Waterfront? Holy shit, that was so meta we were lucky the world didn't end! I think that was the most meta thing that ever happened. I think that scene invented meta.

I already want to watch Raging Bull and Taxi Driver again. I felt like there was so much going on, there's no way I caught everything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph

I think the Godfather movies were brought up, even though they were directed by Coppola, because they are THE iconic mafia movies. Goodfellas inevitably gets compared to them, and everyone it seems prefers one pretty strongly over the other (I'm Goodfellas, the more annoying of my two brothers is all about the Godfather. In fact I just finished watching his DVDs of the trilogy, the first time I've finally seen all three movies uncut in their entirety).

---

That was indeed the reason. BTW: I love all three but I do think Godfather and Godfather II are two of the absolute best movies ever made and Goodfellas is nearly as good but a tiny step down. I gave all 3 10s on IMDB but that is because I could not give the first two 11s or ∞.

I really should rewatch Raging Bull and Taxi Driver again.

The King of Comedy yesterday evening. My friend told me she really didn't care for this one, but I gotta say, I loved it. Not as much as Taxi Driver, but still quite a bit. There were so many moments that made me literally squirm with embarrassment. Especially when he took the girl to Jerry's house--oh my god, I thought I would die. The whole movie made me feel awkward like that, but at the same time, it really made me laugh. I know plenty of fans like Rupert and Masha. Of course, I don't know plenty of people who would actually kidnap the object of their affection, but the rest? Waiting to see them every night? Extreme boundary issues? Normal enough to just seem way enthusiastic but not quite crazy? Sure, they're all over fandom. We figured that Rupert would be the Big Name Fan who attracts hordes of followers and Masha would be his #1 little minion, racing to defend him any time anybody said anything mean about him and wanking up a storm.

We also watched it right after we watched the last episode of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, so it seemed fitting.

There were some things I didn't quite understand about the movie since it was made the year I was born and the cultural context isn't familiar to me. Specifically, the ending. I know that it could have either been real or one of Rupert's fantasies, but how far "out there" did it seem at the time? Now I wouldn't bat an eyelash at the revelation of a psycho fan kidnapping the tonight show host could ultimately turn that crime into a best-selling book and a show and fame and fortune. Did that seem over the top to audiences in 1982? Would it have been an obvious clue that it was Rupert's fantasy and not at all possible? Or would the audience have been like "Yeah, I can see that happening"?

I'm also a little bit confused about his stand up. To me, the show sounded like what you would alternative comics doing today. I laughed at his jokes, and I'm guessing we were supposed to because the audience was laughing as well? I admit, if I were in the audience and a comic said he had to kidnap and tie up the host just to get a break, I'd laugh.

Overall, though, Rupert makes me sad. More sad than Travis or Jake, and definitely more sad than the guys from Goodfellas. He's clearly a narcissist, and a nutball. His reaction to the producer when she told him to start with the clubs was so...well, expected. The thing is, outside of fandom, I know people like Rupert. There the ones who think that if an agent or an editor just speaks to them, they'll automatically love them and want to publish their books. They're the ones who think that their first book is brilliant and they shouldn't have to work hard or pay their dues to get it published (much less write a second, better book). His resistance to going to the clubs--well, it was more than just resistance. He didn't think he needed to. It felt like all he wanted was to be the center of attention for once in his life and the comedy itself was secondary. But then it turns out he is quite funny, just like it turns out that there are debut books that are brilliant. He also makes me sad because the stand-up gives a pretty good idea of how he because the creepy dude we saw in the film. Which is more than what we got in Taxi Driver, at least.

A double-header on this lazy Sunday: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Casino.

I'm not sure if Scorsese simply doesn't know how to end movies or if he ends them the only way he can. I can't help but feel like his movies don't resolve so much as they simply stop.

I really like Alice.... Clearly it wasn't as intense as the other films. It was simple compared to them, but not in the bad way. The characterization of Alice and Tommy are wonderful, and their interaction and dynamic really rings true to me. I like that her "Knight in Shining Armor" wasn't quite so pristine. Yes, he was clearly better for her than her husband or Ben, but he was still far from perfect. But their relationship definitely rang true. Harvey Keitel was as scary as usual. THough even I had to admit he was pretty cute/charming when she first meets Ben. There was no sense that she was being particularly stupid or foolish by dating him. I think in a lot of ways, this movie sums up what I like so much about these films so far--they feel like real people in real situations, even if those situations aren't very nice.

I'm a bit torn on Casino. I don't regret watching it, and the three hours did go by pretty fast. I thought Sharon Stone was probably the brightest spot of the film. I also thought it was interesting the way Ace came across as somewhat sympathetic--usually DeNiro is a lot crazier and less appealing. You want him to get away from that crazy wife of his, but at the same time, you know that he's a situation of his own making, and he's probably getting exactly what he deserves. I ended up feeling very sorry for their daughter. Good God, there's no way that kid is going to escape unscarred. Joe Pesci was terrifying of course. Though it is pretty funny to see a little stocky guy just go fucking apeshit out of nowhere. Scorsese must have thought so, too, since he has Pesci do that so often. It's obviously easiest to compare this to Goodfellas, and I don't think it lives up to that. But I'm genuinely surprised that it was only nominated for one Oscar. But I guess 1995 was a tough year, with big audience favorites like Braveheart and Apollo 13.

Next on the queue is Mean Streets and then Cape Fear.

Cape Fear was next on my queue. Holy shit. This movie scared the shit out of me. It was essentially a slasher movie, complete with the unkillable monster, and usually those don't bother me. They're rarely menacing or suspenseful--actually movies like Halloween make me laugh. But like the other Scorsese films, this one had me hooked from the beginning. One thing about horror movies is that there's usually a strong moral guideline. "Don't have sex or you'll die" etc. While the movie grappled with some serious moral and ethical questions, it never seemed to come down too hard on one side or the other. I mean, on the one hand, the movie tells us that Max has a point about Sam's hiding the document about the victim's "promiscuity." On the other hand, Sam has a pretty good point about how it's not necessary to put the victim on trial. I also like how things were a bit gray. On the one hand, we have Max who might have a good point about the best possible defense, but is obviously just insane and scary. On the other side, we have Sam who is not the most sympathetic character in the world. He cheats on his wife, they clearly get in heated shouting matches on a regular basis, and throughout the movie he's shown as somebody who will sacrifice his principles if he's scared and it's expedient. Of course, it always comes back to haunt him when he does that.

I think DeNiro was so freaking scary. Right before he kills Joe Don Baker, when he turns out and his face is all crazy--I screamed. All of his exchanges with Juliet Lewis made my teeth clench. And there were a few moments that my stomach just dropped--the two times he walks away, mumbling, and you hear his voice drop and everything change. Like you're getting a 2 second view of the real monster lurking beneath this mask.

I didn't like the bookends with Juliet Lewis talking. I felt those were pretty unnecessary. I didn't need any reassurance that she would survive the movie, and I didn't need an explanation of how they "never mention him to each other." So? Hell, I didn't even need the reassurance that they had survived the river. An open ending would have been fine.

Reading through IMDB, I see other people have called this movie campy. I don't know, I like a lot of campy shit, so my camp-meter might be all out of whack. I think this week sometime, I'll watch the original. Maybe we'll take a couple nights off the Scorsese marathon and watch that and On the Waterfront.

I loved Goodfellas, it's probably one of my favourite films. Some of the later Scorsese are just muck. I quite liked Bringing Out The Dead (aka Ambulance Driver :) ) but I didn't really much like Gangs of New York, The Departed, or The Aviator.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

A double-header on this lazy Sunday: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Casino.

I'm not sure if Scorsese simply doesn't know how to end movies or if he ends them the only way he can. I can't help but feel like his movies don't resolve so much as they simply stop.

---

I haven't seen it in many years, but the movie was well done and well made if a little dated now. However, it was way better than the TV show based on it.

Vic Tayback of "Piece of the Action" fame carried over to the TV show as Mel. Oddly Diane Ladd eventually replaced the TV Flo (one of the most annoying characters in the history of media) as waitress Belle Dupree. One other oddity of Movie to TV roles. Valerie Curtain did not get or did not take the Vera role on the TV show but did take Jane Fonda's place in the TV adaptation of "9 to 5".

Tonight was The Color of Money. Overall, I really, really liked it--big surprise, I know. But Paul Newman was perfect, Elizabeth Mastrantonio was wonderful, and Tom Cruise was tolerable. Well, Paul Newman was always perfect and watching him is always a pleasure. Giggles has never watched any Paul Newman movies before, and I think that's our next project. Raging Bull made me look at boxing a different way, and I think this gave me a new appreciation of pool. But one thing I didn't like? The goddamned ending! Scorsese always gives us way too much information at the end. Way more than we need. It's like he goes 5 minutes past the point he should have said "That's good." But in this movie, he decides to end it there? WHAT?! Okay, I get why he would want to do that, and obviously it had more of an impact than if he had shown us the match, but I wanted to see it!

I really loved Eddie. I liked how this movie could have very well been called The Hustler. I like how it was a story of redemption without quite redeeming him (and that's why the ending does work even if it does bug me). I also like that there was quite a bit of subtext between Eddie and Vincent. Newman and Cruise really did have some chemistry. I liked the dynamic going on--Eddie totally seduced (and manipulated) Vincent into the metaphorical bed with him. But Vincent liked it. I think the scene where Eddie tells Vincent to "cool it" and Vincent ignores him had some genuine sexual tension. One thing I noticed about Scorsese films is that they don't have any homoerotic subtext. If there was even a hint of it in, say, Goodfellas, I would have noticed it. Because I'm shallow enough to think DeNiro and Ray Liotta would be smoking hot. Which makes me think that the subtext in The Color of Money was there on purpose.

Overall, I'm rating this as an enjoyable film, but I don't know if it'll stick with me the way Taxi Driver and King of Comedy did.

Still got Mean Streets, New York New York, and Bringing Out the Dead on the queue.

Tonight we viewed New York, New York. I can see why this was a box office and critical failure. Not that I think it's a failure as a film. Not at all. But yeah, I can see why people weren't really in love with this movie. It's difficult to sell a musical when the happy ending is "She didn't go back to the bum" I think. Though honestly, I was terrified that she would. I just kept thinking to myself "Don't do it, Marty. Don't you do it." (Yes, in my internal monologue, I call him Marty. I feel like we've been through a lot together over the past two weeks). Nobody really wants to watch a dysfunctional love story between an unmitigated asshole and a codependent.

Yet, in the end, it all worked for me.

For a couple of reasons. One, I will always be a sucker for the "asshole does something right for once trope." As harsh as it was, leaving her when he did was really the best thing he could have done. Otherwise, he would have destroyed both of them. Second, I loved the Happy Endings number. Oh my god, there's never too much Liza. That's what I always say. Three, she didn't go running back in the end. Holy shit, there are so many movies where the woman goes back to a total asshole! And we're supposed to be happy about it! A part of me didn't think Scorsese would do that (I think he does an amazing job with women in his films), but another part of me never really knows what to expect. I couldn't tell if that bit in "Happy Endings" was supposed to be [devil robot]IRONY[/devil robot] or foreshadowing.

Of all the films, I'd probably rank this at the bottom. My three favorite so far, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, and King of Comedy, all have characters that seem larger than the film they're in. Travis and Rupert clearly have back stories, and inner lives that might be stunted or shallow but are there. Something made these guys tick. I never really felt that with Jimmy. Did he just lack social skills because he was dedicated to his music? Did he have any depth besides "self-absorbed prig"? He seriously makes most of DeNiro's other characters look like warm, pleasant people.

Also, Scorsese says he was trying to get away from his "gritty films" with NY, NY, but if that's true, he failed. And he failed so spectacularly that I can't imagine he didn't realize it was happening. How can you look at the relationship between Jimmy and Francine and not realize that in its own way it's just as bit as dark and gritty as the other films?

While I'm eager to rewatch some of the others to pick up on things I may have missed, I can say honestly I'll probably not see this one again.

Also, we watched The Hustler today. Oh my god, was that bleak. I've seen it before, but apparently I hadn't remembered most of it. Reminding myself of the backstory really made The Color of Money even darker.

Tonight we watched The Aviator. It's pertinent to my interests in a lot of different ways, so I actually expected to love this film. And I don't know. I liked it a lot. It was beautifully done. Once again, I'm really struck by how Scorsese puts a movie together. But the magic of his other movies (as I alluded to in my previous post) is the connection to the characters. We're not allowed any distance. We have to be there for every sordid detail and we have to squirm through it and we're not given a break. In that sense, even New York New York is more successful than The Aviator. Which is strange, because the movie succeeds on so many levels. As per usual, the acting cannot be faulted on any level. Everybody involved did the sort of amazing job you'd expect from a Scorsese picture. The choreography was stunning. I love the use of cinecolor, technicolor, and 3 tone color. But when Hughes broke with reality and got caught in his own mind, I never felt like I was there with him. But I'm beginning to learn that even a less-than-great Scorsese film is still pretty brilliant.

If I had to rank things so far, it'd look like this:
1) Taxi Driver
2) The King of Comedy
3) Goodfellas
4) Raging Bull
5) The Color of Money
6) Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
7) Cape Fear
8) The Aviator
9) Casino
10) New York, New York

Another double-header today (Sunday seems a good day for them). The Last Temptation of Christ and The Departed. I went into both pictures expecting to like both of them. Unlike The Aviator, The Departed really felt like a Scorsese movie. Realistic characters behaving in realistic ways, a dramatic story with no easy way out of it, and a sad, but logical violent ending. Once again, though, I kinda felt the ending was just a little too much. Did we need the shot of the rat, Marty? I think we probably didn't. But I really liked all the acting. I even enjoyed Jack Nicholson and I never really enjoy him. Mark Wahlberg was my favorite, though. I just knew he'd set everything to right again. Still, I wish it wasn't quite so fucking bleak. Sometimes people do make it through to the end of a Scorsese movie, why couldn't Bill?

The Last Temptation of Christ was really, really amazing. Like I said, I expected to like it, but I didn't expect to really love it, but I do. I think about halfway in everything clicked and I thought "Holy shit, I love this movie." For me, it really made Christ's story powerful. Something that I could really understand the appeal of. I just adored so much of it, from the constant talk of revolution to the way Paul claimed he loved the crucified Christ in the dream sequence. For once, Harvey Keitel didn't freak me out. I loved the constant give and take, the fear and the certainty, the helplessness and the faith. I read on the IMDB somebody criticizing this movie because Jesus was too indecisive and not charismatic--he was too human, I guess.

I'd rank both movies highly, though it's getting harder to really compare the films to each other.

Where is Age of Innocence in your queue?

I still need to acquire it, but it'll probably happen sometime this week.

ETA: Strangely enough, I was just flipping through the channels and saw that Age of Innocence was on Indieplex, so I've set it to record.

Bringing Out the Dead. I wasn't even sure if I'd like this movie. I remember that it wasn't that well received and besides that Nic Cage has been tapdancing on my last nerve for the past six years or so. In fact, he was in the movie I hate more than any other movie ever made--Next. But I shouldn't have worried. This was Nic Cage at his best. This was before he got lazy and insane, when he was an actual star that people cared about. I know the movie has been compared to Taxi Driver, and I can see why. Paul Schrader wrote it, it's set in a very gritty, ugly New York, and it's about one man going insane. But in A Personal Journey of American Film, Scorsese discusses one of his heroes, John Ford. He points out that Ford made three westerns, set in the same location, starring the same man (John Wayne), and each one of them was different. Different conflicts, different motivations, different characters. That's what I thought of when I watched this movie. It's a different approach to the same basic madness and it reaches a different conclusion in the end.

Both Travis and Frank are forced to be in the madness of the city on a nightly basis. Both of them keep odd hours and barely seem to exist during the day. Both of them fixate on the girls they can't save. But Travis ultimately wants destruction. He wants the world to be baptized in fire. He wants to clean the streets and in the moral construct of the movie, he's not wrong. But Frank wants to save everybody. Rose haunts him because he thinks he should have been able to bring her back. The man he actually saved fights it until Frank ultimately realizes it's an act of mercy to kill him. Two babies are born, one doesn't live but the other does--do you celebrate or do you mourn? The movie is constantly demonstrating the tension between life and death, between light and dark. And Frank is the corpse walking through both worlds ("Wondering between the winds" as they might say in The Searchers). He can't truly exist in one or the other. He says his ultimate job is to be a witness. He feels passive and helpless. He says there's no greater joy than saving a life, but when he successfully saved a life, he still feels empty and passive. He longs for violence because he's frightened by how much life and death seem to be alike. When the movie picks up the pace, it's shallow and frightening because it's Frank becoming manic in an effort to be anything except a corpse.

I read a review on the IMDB that said nothing was resolved, but that's not true at end. I think for once I am entirely and without reservations pleased with a Scorsese ending. At first, Frank made the same decision Travis did. If he could kill the guy causing all the trouble (Noel) then maybe he'll feel like he's done some good. But in the end, he can't do that. He lets the right person go and he saves the right person. He makes two active decisions and things stop happening to him and starts happening because of him. He chose to engage with the world twice and maybe that's the answer he needed. Or maybe his downward spiral will continue after the credits roll, but at least for one night he made the right choices, and for one day, he got to sleep.

I feel like both movies were about having some sort of measurable impact on the world, if only for a moment. Both dealt in life and death but with vastly different conclusions.

Despite warnings from my best friend, I watched The Age of Innocence last night. Oh my god. That was so boring. Actually, I wouldn't have minded being bored. I love some good simmering emotion just below the surface. I love lust vs obsessive love vs obligations vs social pressures. I love Daniel Day Lewis. I actually thought Winona Ryder did a really awesome job. But despite the narrator describing Archer extensively throughout the film, I never got the sense that I knew anything about him. Also, I wanted to punch him in his stupid face. Why didn't he leave? Why didn't he stop being a paranoid, self-centered pussy and leave? Was the movie about how ridiculous it is to live a life dictated by arbitrary rules and order? Though the family seemed like a mafia family, they had no power to actually kill him or bring harm upon him if he left. What if he took the Countess and ran away to the west? They could have settled in San Francisco, he could have been a lawyer, and I'm sure they could have been happy. Was it just because of the money? he could have made more! Christ! It's especially hard for me to sympathize because he was a man. He really could have struck out and done something, anything, besides mope around and look startled every time somebody spoke to him. The people who were truly trapped were May and Ellen and he never once even considered that! I can actually forgive a lot when it comes to movies but it's really hard for me to like somebody who is so passive, who is incapable of doing anything except dreaming of another life.

Having said all of that, it was a beautiful movie. Of course it was. I loved the scenes in the opera house. I love that all the patrons cry at the same scene every season because it's their only emotional outlet. I loved the wardrobe and the stages. I liked the way the film was edited so there was a sense of movement even in slow talking scenes. I love the moment when they finally can't take it anymore and he "makes love" to her. It was very much an economy of motion and gestures, all the more powerful because every little bit of contact was significant. There's always something to like in a Scorsese movie, but ultimately, this is going to be ranked among the films that I'm glad I saw but won't be watching again. That list also includes The Aviator, New York, New York and Casino.

I still have Mean Streets on my queue. And next week is Shutter Island!!!!!!!!

Age of Innocence is the only Scorsese film I've ever seen. (I may have seen Color of Money, but I don't recall it).

I know I need to see some of his others. I love Age of Innocence because of the tension and deep waters depicted. There are scenes where I am amazed the characters come through unscathed. Newland Archer is as much a victim of his circumstances and position as Ellen or May. The ending where it is revealed that his wife knew all along....

It is not a movie to halfway watch--every scene, every movement carries the story and reveals and obscures the action. I found it absolutely riveting, but also painful to watch (I've only seen it twice).

Read Roger Ebert's review of it (if you want to). I'm glad you watched it and if it wasn't your cup of tea, that's fine too. But I have heard it said that it's just a costume piece and it is far from that. I was curious to see what you thought. (and I wish they had both said to hell with their positions and social standing and just lit out for somewhere out west, too, but that is not what the Wharton book is about).

Yeah, eleanor, I agree that it's amazing film and really accomplishes a lot. I just couldn't get over my distaste for Archer.

Last night was Mean Streets. A part of me wishes that I had watched it sooner. I loved it. Holy shit, what a great movie. I think this is the very first time ever that I found Harvey Keitel attractive and likable in a role. I loved all of the Christ imagery surrounding him, though whenever there is Christ imagery it really foreshadows the ending. DeNiro was brilliant as Johnny Boy. He's such a crazy little punk, but he's really only a product of his environment. His violence is chaotic, without cause, and in his mind, without consequence. But isn't that exactly what his neighborhood looks like from the outside? Of course, he was so troubling because he truly operated outside of the rules and structures of their society. Johnny Boy didn't fear the loansharks and what not because they didn't fear the cops.

I was also fascinated by the relationship between Charlie and Johnny. The subtext was damned near text in a few places. The first time they're in the bar together, and everything slow downs as Charlie watches him approach with a long, lingering stare. The way Charlie will automatically jump to Johnny's defense, as though it's the only real possible reaction. The fact that even when they get into a violent fight they can't stay mad at each other. Harvey Keitel can be amazingly tender in scenes with men. I never see him with that sort of tenderness towards women! The fact that they ended up in a car with an obvious "sissy" and how uncomfortable that made them. Something interesting happens when you introduce gay characters to demonstrate how not gay your characters are. Rather than distract from the subtext that already exists, you draw attention to it. The same thing happened in Midnight Cowboy. The constant anxiety (either from the characters on a meta level) creates tension in the text that only emphasizes the homoerotic subtext (this anxiety never exists in movies were the bonding is all homosocial. Look at films like Raging Bull and Taxi Driver and Goodfellas as an example). There's also the fact that after they meet the "sissy" and his partner, there's quick cut, and then we see Charlie and Johnny in their underwear and clearly sharing a bed. Charlie won't tell his girlfriend he loves her, and he won't even choose her over Johnny. And let's face it, Johnny is no prince. He's a real asshole. And while Charlie clearly takes his relationship with God seriously and wants to try to be helpful, it's obvious that Johnny really means something to him beyond just being a project or something.

It definitely helped me appreciate Harvey more as an actor, too. Well, this and The Last Temptation of Christ. Also, the movie was genuinely funny. There's always a certain amount of wit in Scorsese films, but this one made me laugh out loud several times.

We basically have two movies left. After Hours and Gangs of New York. well, and of course, Shutter Island next week. This makes me sad. I know I can revisit these movies any time I want, but I won't be able to experience them as completely new again. We've been discussing what comes next, and I think we are leaning towards seeing the must-see Paul Newman films, and then returning to Billy Wilder. I've seen several of his films, but Giggles hasn't.

Gangs of New York. Holy fuck. I don't even know what else to say. The movie twisted me all up in nights and I'm still sitting here with a stomach ache. I've been moved and disturbed by Scorsese's other films, of course, but this is on a completely different level. This was like getting a fist to the solar plexus. At one point, I thought I might actually have to turn the film off, but I figured if I did, I wouldn't be brave enough to turn it back on. I love this movie in every way, and I love everything about it. It was just so intense. And it was so standard to. It was Shakespearean. But it was unexpected, too. I think that was because of the strength of the acting. I really felt a connection to all of the characters, including the Butcher. He was so mustache-twirling-evil, but he was a real person, too. He had more than one evil dimension. And at times, Amsterdam was so conflicted, like he was genuinely forming an attachment to his father's killer. But then, why not? Bill Cutting clearly saw Amsterdam's father has a peer, an equal. He said the only thing that separated them was religion, and I don't think he was lying. It makes sense of Amsterdam to be attracted to Bill, and it makes even more sense for Bill to be attracted to him.

I loved the setting for this film. I love the set he built. I love how Five Points felt like a real, lived-in place. And as always, I love the way it was put together. The cinematography, the lighting, the choreography, the soundtrack, the editing all works so perfectly. It's a story about being an American and what that really meant for too many people. I'm glad that I watched this one last. I think it's a masterpiece. It should be one of the classics people study 100 years from now.